D&D 5E Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?

[El Mahdi]

P.S.: I think Kamikaze's Narrative Distinction is why Ranger and Warrior should be distinct classes.

Warriors, in my mind, have a common origin, and learn a common set of skills. That origin is Military. All Warriors (Fighters) received the medieval equivalent of basic training. They were all, in their past, likely a part of some kind of military group (whether mercenary company, house militia, standing army, etc.).

Rangers, in my mind, were not necessarily military in origin. They started out as hunters and trackers, and were maybe recruited by a military because of their skills (like a contractor), but they are not Warriors; even though they can fulfill that role to an extent.

So, Warriors and Rangers both have distinctive Narratives, and both have distinctive Purposes.

 

[El Mahdi]

Do Artificers have a distinctive narrative and a distinctive purpose?

If so, then it should be its own class.

If it should be its own class, does its mechanics effectively support its distinctive purpose?

If not, then the mechanics need to be changed or developed to do so.

 

[steeldragons]

They definitely don't need a separate class. The first draft didn't work for a lot of folks. But there's no reason it /can't/ work as a wizard tradition. Throw in a hammer and light armor. Throw in thieves tools and whatever their supposed to do with their items. I think most people (other than the hard core "NO! It needs to be separate or I'm not special enough!" crowd, who will never be happy with anything that isn't overpowered snowflakey enough) can live and be happy with that.

All they are is a setting-specific [Eberron] wizardry-flavored specialization. They don't really warrant anything more than that.

As for the question at hand, no, Prof's do not a class make...but they (and different enough fluff) are just fine for establishing a subclass.

 

[PnPgamer]

So with the survey result for the Eberron material out, it looks like WotC is taking another look at Artificer. And they probably should - Mearls's perspective that they were "too conservative" seems accurate from where I'm sitting.

But in all the conversations about if the artificer should be its own class or a subclass of something else, a theme keeps recurring that personally drives me a little batty. It comes up in other places too - in discussing psionic classes or warlords. It is some variation on this:

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers use better weapons and armor. Maybe it should be a cleric/bard/rogue subclass!​

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers have skills like using thieves' tools and artisan's tools!​

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because its spells are about buffs not fireballs!​

It's about the artificer recently, but it's beyond that, too. It happens with psionics when it comes up. It happened with the warlord wars. Every time I see someone make the case that Character Type X can't be part of Class Y because of how Class Y is somehow limited or insufficient or weak in terms of its proficiencies, skills, or spells, a little part of me facepalms hard enough to leave a mark.

Because usually I don't buy it. Or at least, it takes more than that lack to convince me.

From where I'm sitting proficiencies don't matter much. Call it a cantrip or call it a martial weapon, at the end of the day, we're all doing ~1d10 damage at range and ~2d6 damage in melee with level scaling. From where I'm sitting, skills are flexible. Get the right background or take some downtime or have a decent ability score bonus and use bounded accuracy and your proficiency bonus can go screw. From where I'm sitting spell lists aren't niche protection anymore. Listen, my sorcerer can heal, my mage can buff, my paladin can blast, and my bard can cast niche rituals. There's a continuum of how WELL they can do these things, but we are no longer in a world where if you want a healing spell you suddenly have to be a different class.

Also from where I'm sitting classes are huge. Each level in a class precludes taking another class, meaning with 12 classes and 20 levels each, each level only lets you experience one part of the game out of *two hundred and fourty possible parts*. That's a lot of competition, a lot of alternate choice, and a lot of things locked out if you don't select it. Using your class abilities occupies a HUGE chunk of your play time and is perhaps the biggest, most defining choice you can make about your character.

None of this means that there can't be new classes - or, hell, that the artificer or the psion or the warlord can't be one of 'em. It just means they need to go big or go home. They can't just be little tweaks to existing classes. They need to earn their size. This isn't 2e with its canonical and only classes. But this isn't 3e or 4e where spellthieves and at least three different samurai and seekers and battleminds and runepriests galumphed through our class selection process.

It does means that the reason you have a new class isn't because of an armor proficiency or a weapon proficiency or a skill proficiency or a spell selection. You need bigger than that. You need a narrative distinction. You need to fire on all three pillars of play. You need to have a role in the world that is special. You need to have a mechanic that is defining. You need to be huge.

Because if you show up at my table and say, "I'm not a wizard because I wear heavy armor, use a hammer, know how to use thieves' tools, and cast buff spells," I might say, "Well, my friend here the mountain dwarf abjurer with the urchin background wonders what makes you such a special unique snowflake?"

I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement to be had, because what should or should not be a class is a big friggin' deal to lots of people. I'm interested in counterpoints and points of support, but I'm more interested in using this to get at what makes a class distinction in someone's mind - what warrants a new class? What finds a home somewhere else? Why? What is your personal logic?

Nothing else wrong with your post BUT the fact that the dwarf subrace grants only medium armor proficiency, not heavy. Not that they couldn't use it, though.

 

[The Human Target]

They definitely don't need a separate class. The first draft didn't work for a lot of folks. But there's no reason it /can't/ work as a wizard tradition. Throw in a hammer and light armor. Throw in thieves tools and whatever their supposed to do with their items. I think most people (other than the hard core "NO! It needs to be separate or I'm not special enough!" crowd, who will never be happy with anything that isn't overpowered snowflakey enough) can live and be happy with that.

All they are is a setting-specific [Eberron] wizardry-flavored specialization. They don't really warrant anything more than that.

As for the question at hand, no, Prof's do not a class make...but they (and different enough fluff) are just fine for establishing a subclass.

For sure, I want an artificer class so I can be an overpowered game winner.

Thanks for understanding.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nothing else wrong with your post BUT the fact that the dwarf subrace grants only medium armor proficiency, not heavy. Not that they couldn't use it, though.

And incidentally, your dwarf can't use heavy armor without a feet.

Ow, my petard! Good point, though!

What is and isn't a class is pretty ephemeral.

I think this is pretty true, which is why I'd welcome a new class that really earned that place. Put enough work into any of these archetypes and you can get a narrative distinction, a reason to exist, a unique mechanic...there's nothing inherently stopping the artificer or psion or warlord from being that. Look at the paladin, ranger, sorcerer, or warlock for a look at classes that could've been folded in but that maintained their distinction by having those unique roles, unique stories, and unique mechanics. Rangers aren't just fighters with a particular proficiency load out or some spellcasting in 5e. They could've been, but they have unique and specialized mechanics all their own - namely the natural awareness and the travel abilities, which is well beyond "I have proficiency in Survival and Nature."

My main thrust is that proficiencies, skills, and spell selections are inadequate to achieve that escape velocity. You aren't not a wizard because you have medium armor, wield a hammer, and cast buff spells. You need more than that.

Similarly, you could perhaps build something that approximates an artificer by playing a mountain dwarf urchin abjurer. But what if you want a human guild artisan artificer (which pretty much is the classic type from Eberron)? Or if you want restorative magic (which was always part of the artificer's toolkit - only for constructs in 3e, but since 4e made them leaders they got to heal fleshlings too)?

My point is that if dwarves can do it, it's not hard to let ANYONE do it - we're not talking about a unique mechanic, we're just talking about a few proficiencies. And the test-artificer had healing (they made potions, much like the 4e artificer).

The Artificer shouldn't be a Wizard because the Artificer doesn't use spellbooks, they use items.
...
The "spells" that an Artificer has are more of a mechanical hang over, it wasn't meant to be a full caster, just to have limited magical resources. The fact that people can easily see the Artificer as a 1/2 or 1/3 caster speaks volumes to exactly how important spells are to the Artificer package: A side note really. I Belive that the Artificer could be a sub-class of the Rogue or Bard, because they are the best at tinkering and using items currently. However, I wouldn't be disappointed if they made a new 1/2 Caster just as long as they got the tinkering bits down right.

Spellbook's just an item, mechanically, and an infusion is basically the same thing as a spell. And I think that much like you have a fighter subclass beingl a 1/3rd caster, you could have a wizard subclass being a half-caster, if you wanted (heck, I'd be eager to see it!).

None of those are narrative distinction or unique roes in the world or specialized mechanics.

For the Psion, it's obvious people want them to use power points instead of spell slots. Which is a significant departure from all the existing classes. Even the Sorcerer, who despite their metamagic, still has to primarily use spell slots. The Psycic Warrior is could be just another Fighter Subclass, but the Psion would require a different core mechanic, and thus a new class.

"Psionics instead of magic" has tended to mean, mechanically, spending points. Guess what the DMG has? Spell points. Now the psion isn't any different from a sorcerer spending spell points.

The alternative to a Battlemaster would be to make an Alternate Bard, like the Alternate Ranger, that runs off of superiority dice instead of spells. And that would be a lot of work.

I mean, you could be a fighter who uses a longsword, a shield, and chainmail, with a high CHA and a respectable DEX and you'd be a lot like a bard with superiority dice. But I don't imagine people who really miss the warlord class would agree that either of these solutions is "enough."

I don't really feel like they need to have a separate class just for them but then I also feel like I might be in the minority for thinking that.

This, plus the preponderance of people proposing classes other than the wizard as homes for the artificer due to skills or weapons or armor or spell lists, were some of the big reasons I started the thread.

Keep it coming, folks! Let me know what is big enough for a class in your book! Perhaps my standards are too high.

 

[Leatherhead]

Spellbook's just an item, mechanically, and an infusion is basically the same thing as a spell.
None of those are narrative distinction or unique roes in the world or specialized mechanics.

A spell is similar to an infusion, but Spellbooks are a way of life for the Wizard. They are a physical object yes, but they are more than that. Class features revolve around it, their spells are queued up through it, their daily routine requires reading from it, off the cuff rituals depend on it, their long term character growth stems from it being filled, and if it is every lost the wizard is in a state of crisis. When I say that the Wizard is defined by the spellbook, I mean it.

And I think that much like you have a fighter subclass beingl a 1/3rd caster, you could have a wizard subclass being a half-caster, if you wanted (heck, I'd be eager to see it!).

It is far easier to add things to a core class rather than subtract from them, I don't think any subclasses take something away from their core class actually.

"Psionics instead of magic" has tended to mean, mechanically, spending points. Guess what the DMG has? Spell points. Now the psion isn't any different from a sorcerer spending spell points.

There is still a lack of crystals

I mean, you could be a fighter who uses a longsword, a shield, and chainmail, with a high CHA and a respectable DEX and you'd be a lot like a bard with superiority dice. But I don't imagine people who really miss the warlord class would agree that either of these solutions is "enough."

Well yeah, the 4e warlord is the only example we really have, and 4e is kinda inflated compared to 5e. But at least a Battle-Bard would have Inspiration to throw around.

 

[Chocolategravy]

They definitely don't need a separate class. The first draft didn't work for a lot of folks. But there's no reason it /can't/ work as a wizard tradition. Throw in a hammer and light armor. Throw in thieves tools and whatever their supposed to do with their items. I think most people (other than the hard core "NO! It needs to be separate or I'm not special enough!" crowd, who will never be happy with anything that isn't overpowered snowflakey enough) can live and be happy with that.

All they are is a setting-specific [Eberron] wizardry-flavored specialization. They don't really warrant anything more than that.

As for the question at hand, no, Prof's do not a class make...but they (and different enough fluff) are just fine for establishing a subclass.

I"m willing to bet you've never played a 3E artificer. I'm pretty much willing to bet anyone saying they fit as wizards has never actually played a 3E artificer.

They don't fit in the wizard class. They play nothing at all like a wizard. They have no martial ability, they don't have a pet, they can't even do traps. They are far more different than a wizard than the sorcerer or even the warlock is to a wizard. You can't justify the sorc and wark existing and turn around and say the arty shouldn't.

The subclass mechanic itself is pretty feeble and doesn't support much. Calling it a sub-class is disingenuous to begin with. It's a feat chain, it replaces the feats you'd normally get with set feats, and that is all it is. It is a customization to an existing class, not a new class. Having a rogue suddenly develop spell casting at level 3 doesn't even fit a rogue let alone another class like artificer, and having a wizard develop trap making and disarming at level 3 equally makes no sense for the class, and so sub-classes just don't work for the sort of thing they're supposed to do.

 

[Li Shenron]

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers use better weapons and armor. Maybe it should be a cleric/bard/rogue subclass!​

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers have skills like using thieves' tools and artisan's tools!​

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because its spells are about buffs not fireballs!​

Well I don't know much about what an Eberron artificer should be, but independently from that, these three are clearly bummers because they are all about something the artificer has in addition to the base Wizard class, and that's what a subclass can give.

 

[steeldragons]

I"m willing to bet you've never played a 3E artificer. I'm pretty much willing to bet anyone saying they fit as wizards has never actually played a 3E artificer.

And you would win that bet ...in my case, I mean. Can't say for anyone else. What I know is what I've read about them. I am of the mind that the archetype presented needs to keep with/be true to the flavor and (as others have talked about) "narrative reasons/purposes" of the class.

They don't fit in the wizard class. They play nothing at all like a wizard. They have no martial ability, they don't have a pet, they can't even do traps. They are far more different than a wizard than the sorcerer or even the warlock is to a wizard. You can't justify the sorc and wark existing and turn around and say the arty shouldn't.

Well, I, personally, have never justified the existence of the sorcerer as a class. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms we need not open here.

The subclass mechanic itself is pretty feeble and doesn't support much. Calling it a sub-class is disingenuous to begin with. It's a feat chain, it replaces the feats you'd normally get with set feats, and that is all it is.

What "feats" are you talking about? In 5e feats are optional. You can't build a class (or sub-class), theoretically usable at any table playing in Eberron (or any other setting), around an optional system.

Let me see if I can make this clear without being flamey/warry...because I really do not intend it that way. Play as you like. S'no skin off my back...but you will not get a 3e artificer with everything a 3e artificer was. This is not 3e.

This is 5e. 5e is not the same game as 3e. It does things differently. It tries to get things similar or allow a play experience close to -not "the same as"- 3e, if that's what you want...but it is not and will not be 3e. That's what 3e is for.

It is a customization to an existing class, not a new class.

Yes! Right. Very good. And the proposals being made [seem to me] is: An artificer is [best portrayed/most closely seems to be] a customization of the wizard class. Someone who works with [arcane] magic to "infuse" items with magical abilities. A "crafter." A magical "tinker."

Since you pick a wizard specialization at 2nd level...an artificer is not "suffering" anything by spending 1 level casting mage spells before they delve into their "magical tinkery smithish almost rogue guy" pursuits. 1 level (that is a remarkably short amount of game play if played btb) before you refluff/re-flavor your magic spells into "infusions" and start accumulating your sub-class specific skills & features [whatever they may be] that other wizards do not have.

I just don't see the logic of this argument...or how it lands on the conclusion "They can't/shouldn't be a wizard subclass."

Having a rogue suddenly develop spell casting at level 3 doesn't even fit a rogue let alone another class like artificer, and having a wizard develop trap making and disarming at level 3 equally makes no sense for the class, and so sub-classes just don't work for the sort of thing they're supposed to do.

Except that that is exactly what the Arcane trickster is. Isn't it? A rogue who learned a little magic at level 3? Why is the concept of a wizard learning a little roguey stuff (light armor, thieves' tools, trap finding/disarming...is there an artisan "tinker tools", I don't recall?) so impossible or unreasonable?

EDIT TO ADD: All of that said, as others have pointed out, I could see it done as a subclass of Bard as well...and perhaps it is a better/shorter jump flavor/fluff- wise and for adding proficiencies (since the bard would already have some of it built in). But that, too, would be a sub-class. So most of the above points, I guess, still apply...as does my conclusion that there isn't a need for a whole separate class.